|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
I have 700 x 35 tires on my hybrid bike, and I've recently learned
that I can change the 35 (width?) to a different size, ie. 32, 28 etc. Question is, do I want to? I ride exclusively on pavement in a city, so I'd like to maximize tire efficiency for this type of driving. - First of all, will it work to put different width tires on my hybrid/city bike, or is there an issue with narrower widths coming off the rim, etc.? - Secondly, is there an advantage to using a different tire size if I can, or should I assume the original 700 x 35 tire size was already designed ideally for city driving? - Lastly, I read expert testimonials that said slick tires are best for pavement riding, cornering, wet driving, traction and have less rolling resistance, basically because more rubber contacts the road. I was looking to buy the Michelin Transworld City, but its not a pure bald slick, it has fairly deep recesses, presumably to siphon off water (which I read isn't necessary for bike tires, and that this system doesn't work better than slicks). So my question is, would I be better off driving in my city with a pure bald slick, such as the Avocet Road 20, instead of the Michelin Transworld City? Or is it even better to use DIFFERENT TIRES for the front and back? Any commonly known disadvantages to going with pure bald untreaded slicks on pavement, such as premature tire wear, as compared against tires with a tread? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
"Joe Samangitak" wrote in message
om... I have 700 x 35 tires on my hybrid bike, and I've recently learned that I can change the 35 (width?) to a different size, ie. 32, 28 etc. Question is, do I want to? I ride exclusively on pavement in a city, so I'd like to maximize tire efficiency for this type of driving. - First of all, will it work to put different width tires on my hybrid/city bike, or is there an issue with narrower widths coming off the rim, etc.? - Secondly, is there an advantage to using a different tire size if I can, or should I assume the original 700 x 35 tire size was already designed ideally for city driving? - Lastly, I read expert testimonials that said slick tires are best for pavement riding, cornering, wet driving, traction and have less rolling resistance, basically because more rubber contacts the road. I was looking to buy the Michelin Transworld City, but its not a pure bald slick, it has fairly deep recesses, presumably to siphon off water (which I read isn't necessary for bike tires, and that this system doesn't work better than slicks). So my question is, would I be better off driving in my city with a pure bald slick, such as the Avocet Road 20, instead of the Michelin Transworld City? Or is it even better to use DIFFERENT TIRES for the front and back? Any commonly known disadvantages to going with pure bald untreaded slicks on pavement, such as premature tire wear, as compared against tires with a tread? Yes you can switch widths within broad limits ( A 700-47 will probably not clear your frame and a 700-20 won't last a day on a wide rim). On most fat 700 rims a 32 through 38 are fine. I do not know your rim model so I can't say what the limits are. If your dealer has a clue s/he should be able to make a recomendation. Do you want faster? Tougher? A softer ride? The ability to better corner agressively? Tread is completely irrelevant on a paved surface. The Michelin Transworld City is a great urban tire, I like them lots more than the cheap knobby o.e.m. tires on $300~$500 bikes. They're long-wearing and smoother riding. That said, the siping is only there to pander to customers' misunderstandings of tires and treads. Smooth would have been better and Michelin knows it. They are made in 700-35, 700-32 and 700-28 . There's theoretically a 700-40 that is perenially on backorder if they ever made them at all. ( and a nice fat 700-47 that may not be useful to you) Other popular tires for your bike are Inoue-IRC's Metro 700-38 on the fat side, Panaracer Pasela 700-35 for a medium tire and the wonderfully fast IRC Tandem 30 if you are not a heavy or abusive rider and your route is free of pavement anomalies. Keep the pressure up always but especially if you go to a skinnier tire. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
"A Muzi" wrote in message ...
Yes you can switch widths within broad limits ( A 700-47 will probably not clear your frame and a 700-20 won't last a day on a wide rim). On most fat 700 rims a 32 through 38 are fine. I do not know your rim model so I can't say what the limits are. 32-38 sounds reasonable, I'm not sure its a good idea to push it to extremes, beyond the original design of 700 x 35. If your dealer has a clue s/he should be able to make a recomendation. Do you want faster? Tougher? A softer ride? The ability to better corner agressively? I don't care to win any races, but less effort would be nice, because I'm extremely lazy. Hence the reason I am looking at baldies; less rolling resistance. The streets the bike will ride on are all paved, but there are plenty of cracks to deal with, and often have to jump on or off the sidewalk, so there are bumps to deal with. I don't know that I need to corner "aggressively", because I'm not an aggresive rider; but I want to corner -safely-, particularly in wet conditions, if I get caught in the rain. I do not ever want to crash. It would help if I simply knew, in general, what the advantages and disadvantages are between "skinnier" and "fatter" tires. Tread is completely irrelevant on a paved surface. The Michelin Transworld City is a great urban tire, I like them lots more than the cheap knobby o.e.m. tires on $300~$500 bikes. They're long-wearing and smoother riding. My original tires were Japanese-made Panaracers (Ridge Line 2). So they weren't OEM's and they didn't seem cheap, but I'm replacing them because I recently learned they have no business being on a bike that is designed to ride exclusively on pavement. That said, the siping is only there to pander to customers' misunderstandings of tires and treads. Smooth would have been better and Michelin knows it. You see, THIS is why I am thinking of exchanging the Michelin Transworld City tire that I bought. Because I only learned afterward that tread siping only caters to ignorant cyclists; which I do not want to be! If I can get a better tire for no more than the price of the Transworld City, then I want to get the choice right now. Other popular tires for your bike are Inoue-IRC's Metro 700-38 on the fat side, Panaracer Pasela 700-35 for a medium tire and the wonderfully fast IRC Tandem 30 if you are not a heavy or abusive rider and your route is free of pavement anomalies. Keep the pressure up always but especially if you go to a skinnier tire. The Pasela is not a bald slick, it has some light treads (while the Transworld City also has a tread, its quite a different surface than the Pasela). So I'm wondering between the two, which is better and why? (As for the IRC Metro, although its nearly treadless with little siping, I only see it listed in mountain bike tire sizes (26 x ?), and it looks like it will be near impossible for me to get at my local dealers). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:34:08 -0500, A Muzi wrote:
of pavement anomalies. Keep the pressure up always but especially if you go to a skinnier tire. In fact, the reason to go to a skinnier tire, afaik, is to be able to use a higher pressure. I recall a thread that discussed rolling resistance; and some studies or experiments or something determined that all things being equal (pressure, tread, compound, bike, rider, temp, humidity, etc), a wider tire actually has less rolling resistance. The real-world result, however, was that narrower tires had lower rolling resistance due to the higher pressures you could use. Does anybody else remember that? I don't think it was on these rec.bicycles newsfroups, but I can't imagine where it WAS if that's the case. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 -- Rick Onanian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
Does it not make sense that the fatter tire will have more rolling
resistance because the contact patch (and thus friction) will be greater with the fatter tire? If you look at vehicles built for straight-line speed (other than those where massive power needs to be transmitted to the ground - definitely NOT bikes) be it soap-box racers to land speed record assault rocket cars, the tires are hard and skinny to minimize rolling resistance. -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "Rick Onanian" wrote in message news On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:34:08 -0500, A Muzi wrote: of pavement anomalies. Keep the pressure up always but especially if you go to a skinnier tire. In fact, the reason to go to a skinnier tire, afaik, is to be able to use a higher pressure. I recall a thread that discussed rolling resistance; and some studies or experiments or something determined that all things being equal (pressure, tread, compound, bike, rider, temp, humidity, etc), a wider tire actually has less rolling resistance. The real-world result, however, was that narrower tires had lower rolling resistance due to the higher pressures you could use. Does anybody else remember that? I don't think it was on these rec.bicycles newsfroups, but I can't imagine where it WAS if that's the case. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 -- Rick Onanian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
"GRL" wrote in message ... Does it not make sense that the fatter tire will have more rolling resistance because the contact patch (and thus friction) will be greater with the fatter tire? Not necessarily. At a given tire pressure and weight, the contact patch is *the same size*, no matter how wide (up to a point). Think PSI. Pounds per sq inch. A 200lb rider/bike creates a 2 sq in patch for a bike tire pumped to 100 psi. No matter what the width or diameter. The contact patch will be a different shape for a wider vs skinnier tire. Wide and short, instead of long and skinny. Less sidewall deformation as the tire rolls. This is, of course, making the huge assumption that all other factors are equal (Tire construction, TPI , pressure, etc). Width (wind resistance) may overcome the difference in Crr. If you look at vehicles built for straight-line speed (other than those where massive power needs to be transmitted to the ground - definitely NOT bikes) be it soap-box racers to land speed record assault rocket cars, the tires are hard and skinny to minimize rolling resistance. They are also skinny to minimise frontal area/wind resistance. Those types of vehicles also do not have to worry about wear, traction in varying conditions, marketing costs, etc. Several tire rr tests have been done in the recumbent community. http://www.beezodogsplace.com/Pages/...Resistance.pdf http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/GS.htm Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:08:29 -0400, GRL wrote:
Does it not make sense that the fatter tire will have more rolling resistance because the contact patch (and thus friction) will be greater with the fatter tire? I thought this too, but I now believe that I was incorrect. See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html#width If you look at vehicles built for straight-line speed (other than those where massive power needs to be transmitted to the ground - definitely NOT bikes) be it soap-box racers to land speed record assault rocket cars, the tires are hard and skinny to minimize rolling resistance. The narrow tires are more aerodynamic and can take higher pressures. -- Rick Onanian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
Joe Samangitak wrote:
- Lastly, I read expert testimonials that said slick tires are best for pavement riding, cornering, wet driving, traction and have less rolling resistance, basically because more rubber contacts the road. I was looking to buy the Michelin Transworld City, but its not a pure bald slick, it has fairly deep recesses, presumably to siphon off water (which I read isn't necessary for bike tires, and that this system doesn't work better than slicks). So my question is, would I be better off driving in my city with a pure bald slick, such as the Avocet Road 20, instead of the Michelin Transworld City? Possibly but it doesn't mean siped tyres should be avoided, because they may happen to be generally excellent tyres still with plenty of grip (more grip than more heavily treaded tyres on road). There aren't too many totally slick tyres on the market so it's unwise to limit yourself just to them. Or is it even better to use DIFFERENT TIRES for the front and back? Front tyre takes less weight and gets an easier life so it can be different - different width, different tread, certainly different pressure. Grip is more of an important factor for front tyre as well. Any commonly known disadvantages to going with pure bald untreaded slicks on pavement, such as premature tire wear, as compared against tires with a tread? Treaded tyres tend to have a deeper layer of rubber so are more puncture resistant and last longer. If this is a major concern, you could use a tyre like this at the rear with a lighter, slicker tyre on the front. ~PB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tire size for 180 lb rider | David Kerber | General | 36 | May 29th 04 11:38 AM |
Tire size for least rolling resistance? | Chris Hansen | General | 6 | April 10th 04 02:03 AM |
Q. Will I benefit from different tire size or type? | Joe Samangitak | General | 15 | August 8th 03 03:38 AM |